ArticleBiometrics2015
On the analysis of hybrid designs that combine group- and individual-level data.
Article in Biometrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- General unemployment and serious workplace injury rates: Workers compensation claims analysis from the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, 2007-2018.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2024Article
- On the Analysis of Case-Control Studies in Cluster-correlated Data Settings.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ecological studies that make use of data on groups of individuals, rather than on the individuals themselves, are subject to numerous biases that cannot be resolved without some individual-level data. In the context of a rare outcome, the hybrid design for ecological inference efficiently combines group-level data with individual-level case-control data. Unfortunately, except in relatively simple settings, use of the design in practice is limited since evaluation of the hybrid likelihood is computationally prohibitively expensive. In this article we first propose and develop an alternative representation of the hybrid likelihood. Second, based on this new representation, a series of approximations are proposed that drastically reduce computational burden. A comprehensive simulation shows that, in a broad range of scenarios, estimators based on the approximate hybrid likelihood exhibit the same operating characteristics as the exact hybrid likelihood, without any penalty in terms of increased bias or reduced efficiency. Third, in settings where the approximations may not hold, a pragmatic estimation and inference strategy is developed that uses the approximate form for some likelihood contributions and the exact form for others. The strategy gives researchers the ability to balance computational tractability with accuracy in their own settings. Finally, as a by-product of the development, we provide the first explicit characterization of the hybrid aggregate data design which combines data from an aggregate data study (Prentice and Sheppard, 1995, Biometrika 82, 113-125) with case-control samples. The methods are illustrated using data from North Carolina on births between 2007 and 2009.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.